Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2A: Approval of City Council Minutes ECC UGENE ITY OUNCIL AIS GENDA TEM UMMARY Approval of City Council Minutes Meeting Date: May 27, 2008 Agenda Item Number: 2A Department: City Manager’s Office Staff Contact: Beth Forrest www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 682-5882 ISSUE STATEMENT This is a routine item to approve City Council meeting minutes. SUGGESTED MOTION Move to approve the minutes of the November 28, 2007, Work Session, February 25, 2008, Work Session, April 21, 2008, Work Session, and April 28, 2008, Work Session. ATTACHMENTS A.November 28, 2007, Work Session B.February 25, 2008, Work Session C.April 21, 2008, Work Session D.April 28, 2008, Work Session FOR MORE INFORMATION Staff Contact: Beth Forrest Telephone: 682-5882 Staff E-Mail: beth.l.forrest@ci.eugene.or.us Z:\CMO\2008 Council Agendas\M080527\S0805272A.doc ATTACHMENT A M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon November 28, 2007 Noon COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz , Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, George Poling, Jennifer Solomon, Betty Taylor, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka (participated by tele- phone). Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy convened the Eugene City Council Work Session. A. WORK SESSION: PLANNING DIVISION WORK PROGRAM FOLLOW-UP Mayor Piercy noted Mr. Zelenka was out of town and would be participating via telephone. She stated City Manager pro tem Angel Jones was also out of town and would be represented by Acting Assistant City Manager Scott Luell. Mr. Luell introduced Planning Director Lisa Gardner, who provided follow-up information from the joint meeting with the Planning Commission, held on October 24, 2007. At that joint work session, the Planning Commission presented its annual report, and staff outlined the Planning Division Work Program for FY08. To allow adequate time to consider work plan tasks, the council requested a follow-up work session and subsequently identified issues and question to be addressed at the work session. Ms. Gardner indicated that staff prepared responses to those questions and issues, included as Attachment A to the Agenda Item Summary (AIS). Questions regarding the implementation of House Bill (HB) 3337 were addressed separately in a memorandum provided to the City Attorney, included as Attachment B to the AIS. If the council approved the motion, as recommended by the City Manager, staff would proceed with the implementation of work program tasks. At this time, it was anticipated that the council would have additional opportunities to provide direction on the following work program tasks: ? Scoping of a comprehensive lands assessment process—prior to beginning the assessment process, staff would provide scoping options to the council for additional direction (Spring 2008). ? Walnut Station Mixed Use Center—the council would be asked to approve the vision concept, including the recommended form based code (Summer 2008). ? Infill Compatibility and Opportunity Siting—the council would be receiving ongoing periodic updates to the progress of both work program tasks through council memos and newsletter. Follow- ing completion of the task team work, proposed compatibility standards and opportunity siting strategies or proposals would be forwarded to council for direction and/or approval (Fall 2008/Winter 2009). MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 1 Work Session ? Neighborhood based refinements plans—staff would provide council updates on scoping of plan updates through council memos. Following the scoping phase, it was anticipated that additional tasks would be proposed in the FY09 work program. ? Ongoing code amendments—following the completion of the Minor Code Amendment process initiated in FY07, staff would pursue the development of an implementation strategy for ongoing code amendments (Fall 2009). ? In addition to the above mentioned specific tasks, the council would receive updates on other plan- ning projects and programs as appropriate through council memos, council newsletters, or requests for work sessions when additional specific direction was needed. Mayor Piercy thanked staff for coming back to the council and responding to councilors’ questions. Ms. Taylor, referring to HB 3337, asked if the City Council approved the work program was it also approving a commercial and industrial lands study. Ms. Gardner responded the recommendation from the Planning Commission was to provide all of the necessary tools to look at all initiatives including infill, mixed use centers (MUC), and opportunity siting by having a comprehensive assessment of all land types, including natural resources and redevelopment capacity. Much of the redevelopment capacity lay in industrial and commercial properties, thus the Commission recommended conducting a comprehensive study. She confirmed Ms. Taylor’s statement that element would need to be removed from the recommenda- tion if the council did not wish to proceed with the study. Ms. Taylor understood that the urban growth boundary (UGB) did not need to be changed until it was looked at through the normal review process. Ms. Gardner stated review of the UGB was not part of the work program task before the council today. City Attorney Emily Jerome said the results of a land assessment would dictate whether the council needed to make any changes, such as densifying. HB 3337 was focused in amending statutes pertaining to residential land, but required establishment of a UGB separate from Springfield. At the time the UGB was established, regional plans, which currently were residential and industrial, would need to have a Eugene focus. Currently, the acknowledged residential land study went to 2015 while the commercial and industrial land studies went through 2010. Prior to the expiration of these studies, there should be an assessment of all of these lands by 2010. The City should expect to hear from the State Department of Lane Conservation and Development (DLCD) in 2014 regarding the next periodic review. Ms. Bettman said she had some amendments when the motion was on the table, one to limit the work program to address only the deadline driven requirements detailed in HB 3337 and the other to add to amendments to the code incorporating the growth management policies. Noting the council had been left out, under the heading “Regional Transportation Planning” she wanted to add council to the list of bodies that Planning staff would assist with transportation planning. Ms. Bettman expressed concern about a form-based code, stating that staff initiated a policy change without bringing it to the council. She was concerned it looked at the building design as opposed to the use, noting different uses had different impacts. Focusing on the structure was not enough to protect adjacent land uses. She was concerned there needed to be additional resources and reprioritization to get water quality protection ordinances or the water resources overlay going. Ms. Gardner responded clear direction from the City Council regarding raising the priority would be helpful. It would require staff to reprioritize the work program. Although it had not been fully scoped, implementing the ordinance would require additional staff time. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Clark inquired about the legal status of any lands study the City would conduct. Ms. Jerome replied that would be up to the council. At the time of the analysis and determination, there would be background information with which the council could do as it wanted. Depending on results of the analysis and assessment, options would be presented to the council. Until those options were taken, they were simply findings for future action. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Jerome said the statutes that governed the studies allowed cities to use data that was gathered since the last periodic review. When conducting a study shortly after periodic review, the statute required going back five years. At the time of periodic review, jurisdictions were required to demonstrate compliance with regulations showing a 20-year supply of land was available in each of the categories. DLCD could be concerned with the age of the data, but statutorily, jurisdictions were permitted to use data gathered since the last periodic review. Mr. Clark asked if the statute did not compel the City of Eugene to adjust its code or policies, but simply required the City to study the issue, what would Eugene be required to do after the City of Springfield established its UGB. He opined until the City of Eugene completed its own residential, commercial and industrial land studies it would be relying on the “old” adopted, acknowledged studies under Goal 10. Until the City of Eugene completed its own studies, it would be relying on 1999 studies that included land in Springfield, to say there was enough land in the UGB, although Springfield would be operating under its own studies. Mr. Clark asked what the legal ramifications for the City of Eugene would or could be for leaning on data that included land in Springfield when the City of Springfield was already acting independently. Ms. Jerome said the laws clearly indicated that every jurisdiction needed to rely on an existing, adopted, and DLCD- acknowledged plan. Until invalidated by the City Council or until time ran out, that was the 1999 Residential Lands Study, which geographically included Springfield land. If Springfield took actions to remove residential lands that the City of Eugene relied on, just as they could do now, the City of Eugene would need to continue to track that information. Although this presented a unique situation, it was defensible. Ms. Bettman understood Springfield lacked residential land in comparison to Eugene because Springfield had built at low densities compared to Eugene. She thought if done right, refinement plans could be a high priority, but she did not believe that had been demonstrated in the past. She had repeatedly raised the issue of updating refinement plans on an area specific basis in each neighborhood. Responding to questions from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Gardner said the MUC concept was a high priority for which resources had been allocated. She added it was not limited to new development, but rather embedded in infill compatibility, opportunity siting and transportation corridor planning, which could be applied to th other transportation corridors, such as West 11 Avenue. The MUC concept acknowledged that commercial development and redevelopment was a critical component of a thriving MUC that included commercial, residential and transit, at the very least. Ms. Bettman claimed the concept had been generalized to the point where it was an “instrument of destruction” rather achieving the original objectives. Mr. Zelenka asked if staff could provide a memorandum indicating which of the growth management policies had been incorporated into code, and which ones had not; and of those not yet incorporated, what was the timeline for doing so. He understood that it was important for the appearance of buildings to relate MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 3 Work Session to the surrounding neighborhood, noting that the tenants were temporary while the buildings were there for a long time. A form-based code was inadequate because tenants and uses could change, and with those changes, the impacts could also change. He wanted a hybrid that would incorporate a form-based code with the existing code. Ms. Gardner said staff would return with the Walnut Station MUC project vision in the near future to talk about form based code as a tool and how it could be applied. Staff could address the impact of uses at that time. Responding to a question from Mr. Clark, Ms. Gardner confirmed some of the projects on the work program had multi-year timelines, some carried forward from previous years, and others that would carry forward into the future. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy regarding growth management policies, Mr. Nystrom said the growth management policies as currently written could not simply be imported into the existing code and used for individual land use applications. Instead, those policies needed to be looked at comprehensively. Addressing Mr. Zelenka’s comments, Mr. Nystrom said staff could try as a first step, to look at how some of those policies had found their way into code, and whether or not there were provisions that tried to implement some of the growth management policies. The growth management policies were not originally written nor adopted by the City Council with the intent of incorporating them into code, but rather were broad and more global in nature. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to approve the FY08 Planning Commis- sion and Planning Division work program contained in the attached annual report. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add the “City Council along with the other jurisdictions and departments” under Regional and Local Transportation Planning. Ms. Gardner said there was a response in the packet on the issue. The Regional and Local Transportation Planning task reflected a supporting role that the Planning Division had in the implementation of council directions, thus assuming there had already been council direction, and staff would not be initiating new projects. Ms. Bettman offered a friendly amendment to add “in response to City Council direction assist Public Works” or “as per council policy.” Ms. Bettman said although she was not on the City Council when the growth management policies were developed, she had participated as a neighborhood leader in the Land Use Code Update and as a councilor in adopting the Land Use Code Update. In her memory this was something that had met much resistance from the organization but most of the people she knew who participated in creating those policies thought they were going to be the governing policies of the code. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to include in the code amendments now being considered by the Planning Commission incorpo- rating the growth management policies into Chapter 9 for the purpose of evaluat- ing land use decisions. Ms. Bettman said this would create a purpose at the beginning of the code so that staff had a guideline to interpret the provisions. There currently were no unifying principles for staff interpretation. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 4 Work Session Mayor Piercy asked if incorporating the growth management policies into Chapter 9 in the form of governing policies of code opposed to specific codes was workable. Ms. Bettman said if this motion passed it was not automatically incorporated into code, but began the process of considering them as a code amendment along with the other approximately 20 code amendments under consideration by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nystrom said it was important to understand how the growth management policies would become part of the code. Where they resided in the code could make a difference on how they were used. He opined if they were imported into a purpose section at the beginning of Chapter 9 about how code was implemented and some of the overarching sections at the beginning of the code, it was very different than importing them into approval criteria for land use applications, and would have very different ramifications. Ms. Gardner noted there were currently 20 code amendments moving forward of 200 suggestions received through the public process, for which approximately 80 percent of the work was completed. She suggested that the 80 percent progress on the 20 code amendments not be interrupted, but rather that any changes be applied to future work. Ms. Bettman opposed Ms. Gardner’s suggestion, saying that it postponed the effort yet again, and it should have been in the initial list. Ms. Bettman had been assured it would be included in the current work. Ms. Ortiz said although Ms. Bettman’s proposal sounded good, she did not want to go back over the work already completed, and apply the principles. Although she understood Ms. Bettman’s desire, she felt bound to keep moving. Responding to a question from Ms. Ortiz, Ms. Gardner stated there were approximately 180 suggestions to review for further action. Ms. Solomon was willing to have the discussion, and although not totally opposed to Ms. Bettman’s concept, she was opposed to Ms. Bettman bringing the issue in at this point. Ms. Solomon suggested having a separate work session on the issue. She opined it was not clear what everyone’s expectations were around the table. Mr. Clark agreed with Ms. Solomon. Although not as familiar with the growth management policies as Ms. Bettman, Mr. Clark understood that intended motions came before the council as a courtesy to other council members with some time to consider them before acting on them and was therefore unprepared to consider Ms. Bettman’s motion. Mr. Pryor asserted policies and procedures were related but kept separate. Policies defined what would be done, and the procedures were the mechanisms to carry out the policies. The code was equivalent to procedure, i.e., the way in which we do things; whereas policies, such as those before council, were more descriptive of what the council wanted to accomplish. Mr. Pryor was okay with including the growth management policies, as policies, and not as part of the procedures. He would be comfortable if the growth management policies were a preamble or prefacing element that said that the growth management policies governed the City’s procedure, but he was not comfortable with inserting them in the middle of each set of procedures, which would be “crazy.” He liked the growth management policies, and thought it was time to revisit them, since they had been adopted in 1998. Mr. Pryor averred that they “absolutely, positively, explicitly have to be as a preamble. . .rather than something inserted into the specific procedural code.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 5 Work Session Ms. Taylor said this was not new, but had been brought up numerous times, most recently during the council’s discussion of the Planning Commission work program. She shared Ms. Bettman’s memory, but had been a member of the City Council when the growth management policies were adopted. Mr. Poling agreed with Mr. Pryor and Mr. Clark. He supported bringing the issue to the City Council in a work session, the appropriate format to argue policy versus code. He did not want to jam the growth management policies into a project in which 80 percent of the work was already done. Ms. Bettman said almost 100 percent of the growth management policies work was done and they had never been implemented. They were supposed to be overarching governing policies for land use and zoning decisions, but never have been. The way to do that was to put them in the code as overarching governing policies so that new code provisions or interpretations of code had a distinct directive that people could turn to, to say that needed to be a policy by which decisions were made. She denied this had been “jammed in”, stating she had given plenty of notice to council that this was an issue and had spoken to staff during the minor code amendment process. Mayor Piercy understood that Ms. Bettman was not asking for it to be put into the procedural part of the code but rather in the overarching policies of guiding the code. Ms. Bettman said it would mean that code provisions and code interpretation had to be consistent with those policies. Responding to a question from Mayor Piercy, Mr. Nystrom said, although caution was warranted, it would not present a problem if the growth management policies were included in the preamble to provide a context for how codes were adopted and how new provisions were added. He said it would be difficult to use the growth management policies as approval criteria, and would present complications if that was the intent. Ms. Gardner referred to Mr. Zelenka’s request for a memorandum from staff delineating which of the growth management policies were already in the code, and suggested staff could include background to enable council to determine if the issue warranted a work session. Ms. Solomon noted confusion around the table about what exactly the council was discussing. As she looked at the growth management policies, she believed the City Council had implemented them as well as they could. She disagreed that the council had not tried to implement those policies, noting they showed up in almost every AIS. She was sorry Ms. Bettman was so cynical about the work done by the council and opined the council had done a good job of implementing those policies. Mr. Pryor stated because there were still questions around the table, and he wanted to reach a conclusion in a thoughtful and deliberate way, he could not support Ms. Bettman’s amendment, but did not want it to fall off the table. Mr. Zelenka said the growth management policies were long-standing adopted City policies. It was important that they get incorporated into the code as an overarching policy direction, but he did not want to see the minor code process grind to a halt. He suggested incorporating them into the preamble of the City Code. He proposed looking at them before the council’s summer break. Ms. Bettman accepted Mr. Zelenka’s suggestion as a friendly amendment to her proposed amendment to the motion. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 6 Work Session Ms. Taylor said anyone involved in civic activities in 1995-1996 could not help being aware of the broad- based, expensive effort on the part of the City which the City could not afford to replicate. Mr. Clark said it was the purview of every City Council to set its policies during its time of service. While he appreciated and respected all of the public input that went into the growth management policies development twelve years ago, he was not as familiar with them as he would like. He asked for a work session to review the growth management policies. He felt strange encumbering a future council to the policies when they might want to change them. Ms. Ortiz said she and her daughter had been active in the community in the mid-1990s and she never heard anything about the growth management policies process in the Bethel neighborhood. She did not know what had been done for outreach. She asked if the motion passed, would the work already completed move forward. Ms. Gardner responded that passage of the motion would not affect the work currently underway on the 20 code amendments in process. Mayor Piercy summarized the motion on the table. Work would continue on the code amendments that were in motion. In the future the City Council would investigate how this would apply to procedure parts of Chapter 9. The growth management policies would only be put in the code as an overarching policy to the code, having basically the same emphasis as they now have. The motion passed, 5:3, Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling and Ms. Solomon voting in opposi- tion. Mr. Pryor explained his vote, stating that his vote was an acknowledgement that this was an official City policy that needed to be recognized in the appropriate place. He explicitly heard that it would be in a place where it would not be applied procedurally; it would be applied as an overarching policy. Ms. Jerome summarized her understanding of the council’s motion as being that they were talking about incorporating part of the pending minor code amendments growth management policies into chapter 9 to serve as policy direction and to direct the City Manager to schedule a future work session to talk about further implementation of them as criteria. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City Manager to amend the work program of the Planning and Development Department (PDD) and the Planning Commission to address only the deadline driven requirements de- tailed in HB 3337 which were the inventory of existing residential capacity, the residential demand analysis and determination, and to specifically delete consid- eration of UGB boundary changes other than any consideration required by HB 3337. Ms. Bettman explained the work program should be focused on only what was legally required until the council had a work session. Her objection was based on a pre-supposed decision by the council. Ms. Solomon asserted that the motion was completely inappropriate and premature in light of the up- coming work session in January. She was not prepared to move on the proposal. Mr. Clark stated he had many additional questions about implementation of HB 3337 and was not prepared to have the fuller discussion today, prior to the January work session. He wanted a much fuller discussion MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 7 Work Session on the specific motion because it removed some issues that needed more discussion. He was not interested in changing or limiting the staff recommendation. Ms. Gardner said if the City Council approved the work program as recommended, it would be approving staff moving forward and scoping a commercial and residential lands assessment. Staff would return to the council before any further steps were taken for approval. Ms. Bettman said the council was authorizing policy changes by accepting the work program. Ms. Ortiz wanted to move forward, noting a number of people from the community whom she respected had signed a letter asking the City Council to move forward. She said she would vote against Ms. Bettman’s motion. Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Ms. Jerome said it was the City Council’s prerogative to set its policy, that policy could differ from past policy, and the council could act on the issue in any way it saw fit. Mr. Zelenka wanted to move forward with what the council needed to move forward with, which was a housing study and having a fuller discussion on January 14, 2008, about the other issues when there was sufficient time to dedicate to the topic. He said he would support the motion on the table. The motion failed, 3:5, councilors Clark, Ortiz, Poling, Prior, and Solomon voting in opposition. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to amend the Planning Commission work program to elevate the water quality protection ordinance and the water re- sources conservation overlay zone. Mr. Clark asked Ms. Bettman why it deserved a higher priority. Ms. Bettman said it was out there, it was not a high enough priority and the council was not really acting on it. Mr. Pryor said he liked that staff used its expertise and professionalism to develop a work program it felt would be most effective within the available resources and time they had to work. When councilors elevated things because they liked them, or they were popular with councilors, the council was saying it wanted to provide a direction based on preference for which it was not as well informed as staff. He was inclined to stick with the work program as submitted because staff knew what resources were available and they were the ones who had to do the work. While recognizing it was the purview of the City Council to set priority, in this case, the council needed to be informed by staff, and he felt the work program as submitted was informed. He was not inclined to make changes, recognizing if one thing was pushed up, something else would need to be pushed down, and he was not included to push anything down that staff had set as a priority because staff priorities were reasonable at this point. Mr. Clark said although he was not fully versed on why staff had prioritized the work program as it had, he assumed staff knew what they were talking about. He asked Ms. Bettman what she would identify as a lower priority as a trade-off to elevate her suggestion. Ms. Bettman asked if other communities had a rotating code that was constantly being amended. The City had undertaken a huge process with the Land Use Code Update, had processed hundreds of code MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 8 Work Session amendments since then, and was planning a process to continuously update the code. She said it was not necessary. There was room in the Planning Division to pursue clean water. Ms. Solomon, concurring with Mr. Clark, said in order to elevate the clean water elements, something else would need to be lowered in priority and she was not willing to do so today without further discussion. The proposed motion circumvented the process of discussion and transparency. The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Bettman, Ms. Taylor, Ms. Ortiz, and Mr. Ze- lenka voting in favor and Mr. Clark, Mr. Poling, Mr. Pryor, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy cast a vote of opposition to the motion and it failed on a final vote of 5:4. Ms. Bettman said she would not support the Planning Division work program because it did not reflect her priorities based on her constituents priorities. She strenuously objected to adopting council policy reversal via the work program, noting it was PDD that put the changes into the work program. The motion passed, 6:2, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting in opposition. B. WORK SESSION: SEQUENCING OF FINANCIAL MEASURES TO PRESENT TO VOTERS Mr. Zelenka said he was worried about the May 2008 levy vote being too early, which meant pushing the levy out to November 2008. This would put the levy and the City Hall vote on the same ballot and he was opposed to this scenario. Mr. Zelenka disconnected from the telephone connection. Central Services Executive Director Jim Carlson provided the staff report. The purpose of the agenda item was to have a high level discussion about items to be placed on the ballot over the next several years, especially in 2008. There were two property tax measures proposed to go before voters during 2008: ? Property tax levy (could be General Obligation [G.O.] Bond or capital local option levy) for trans- portation system capital preservation projects in May 2008. This item was scheduled for council discussion on December 10, 2007, with follow-up discussion on January 14, 2008, and council ac- tion on February 11, 2008. ? City Hall and Police Patrol Facility G.O. Bond measure in November 2008. This item was sched- uled to be discussed by the council on December 12, 2007, and on several additional dates during 2008. Mr. Clark said he would be surprised if the Oregon Legislature did anything about transportation funding during the Special Session in 2008 that would be helpful to the City of Eugene in fixing the transportation backlog. However, he was hesitant to schedule the City’s pavement preservation capital project in May 2008, on the small chance that the Legislature would pass pertinent legislation, and following the defeat of the local gas tax measure to support pavement preservation in November 2007. He was more inclined to MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 9 Work Session offer a total package to fix the whole problem in November 2008. It was wise to consider the City Hall measure at a future point beyond the pavement preservation measure. Ms. Taylor wanted to place the pavement preservation bond on the May 2008 ballot. Other efforts should be taken to do something about the roads before then. City Hall should not be considered in November 2008. She would not support the motion. She disagreed that the issues should be combined. Mr. Pryor agreed with Ms. Taylor, noting that streets needed to be addressed first, perhaps during the current budget cycle. He said although staff deserved a new City Hall, the larger community needed to be listened to. Mayor Piercy said whatever was put on the ballot the City Council should do its utmost to have all councilors in support of the measures, and should commit to do whatever it takes to get the message out to the public. Mr. Poling noted this motion would approve a tentative election schedule that could be modified by the council. It would give staff the go ahead and develop a plan. He was concerned about placing City Hall and Police patrol facilities on the November 2008 ballot. He had received several telephone calls from constituents indicating that they would not approve anything until the streets were fixed. He wanted to hold the November 2008 date in the event council decided to use it. Ms. Bettman said she was willing to consider putting the pavement preservation measure on the May 2008 ballot. The council owed it to the voters to vote the City Hall issue up or down. Although she might support having it on the ballot, there would not be unanimity on council to campaign for it with the Police patrol facility being at Roosevelt. If it had been co-located at City Hall, she would have enthusiastically supported and campaigned for it. She endorsed the tentative election schedule although she did not endorse any of the ballot measures. Ms. Ortiz said she was not prepared to put both motions on the table. She said she supported the pavement preservation program, and agreed with Mayor Piercy’s comments about the council being as united as possible. She said she had concerns about putting the City Hall measure on the ballot in November 2008, noting there was not community support for it. She said she was not willing to put energy into something that would not pass. Mr. Pryor said the tentative election schedule implied a priority listing for the City. Continuing to keep City Hall on the November 2008 ballot sent a signal that the City Council still considered that to be a high priority project over and above other things the community thought the council should be focusing on. He suggested moving the City Hall facility and Police patrol facility bond to the year 2010. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor regarding City Hall, in terms of a bond measure in 2010. He said the public made it clear at the November 2007 election how they felt about passing funding measures, expecting the City Council to do a more thorough job with the money available, and addressing the City’s priorities before they would approve anything additional. He added the City Council needed to rebuild trust with the community. Responding to a question from Ms. Solomon, Mr. Carlson said considering separating City Hall and the Police patrol facility was up to the discretion of the City Council. Ms. Solomon said the police were a high priority for her, and they were not currently in a safe situation. Moving the police patrol facility bond measure to 2010 sent the message to the voters that police were not a priority. MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 10 Work Session Mr. Carlson said keeping City Hall and police patrol together made sense, in that it was a combined need. The work done to-date included development of options for incremental improvements, including looking at the old Federal building for municipal court, a separate police patrol facility and the degree of consolidation on the existing City Hall site. He opined the consultant team would provide options that would enable the City Council to proceed with portions while not proceeding with the entire project. Another question the council would need to weigh would be what, if anything, could or should be done with existing resources without going to the voters. Ms. Solomon said she was willing to move forward with the tentative election schedule, although the council needed more discussion around City Hall and police patrol. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to tentatively support the tentative elec- tion schedule. Ms. Taylor moved to delete City Hall. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Clark moved to amend the motion to put City Hall out to at least 2009 and the pavement preservation issue to November 2008. There was no second to the mo- tion. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to amend the motion to move City Hall to 2010. The motion to amend passed, 4:3; Ms. Bettman, Mr. Poling, and Ms. Solomon voting in opposition. The motion as amended passed, 6:1, with councilor Bettman voting in opposition. The meeting adjourned at 1:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager Pro Tem (Recorded by Linda Henry) MINUTES—Eugene City Council November 28, 2007 Page 11 Work Session ATTACHMENT B M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room – City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon February 25, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Jennifer Solomon, George Poling, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Bonny Bettman. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the work session of the Eugene City Council to order. A. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND CITY MANAGER Mayor Piercy announced that the next Mayor’s One-on-One event would occur the next day at the Rite Aid th Store at 29 Avenue and Willamette Street between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Ms. Taylor would also be present. Mayor Piercy announced that the Eugene Parks and Open Space Division was accepting applications for the community gardens until March 30. Mayor Piercy noted some recent articles in The Register-Guard, one regarding repeat offenders who drove while suspended, and called for more work on the issue. She also noted an article on a group of forest workers who were challenging the federal government on its application of fire retardants on the basis they were contaminating rivers and streams. Mayor Piercy also noted an article that quoted Representative Peter DeFazio expressing concern about the lack of federal dollars to repair local roads and calling for attention to the basic infrastructure needs of the country. Mr. Pryor reported that Ms. Ortiz had been elected his successor as chair of the Human Services Commis- sion (HSC). He characterized the HSC budget being proposed for the next fiscal year as devastating, and said the size of the reductions anticipated if the Secure Rural Schools and Safer Community Self- Determination Act revenues were not renewed would be particularly devastating to human services funding in Lane County. He suggested that the Eugene and Springfield councils should discuss the degree to which those jurisdictions would be prepared to shoulder the burden of providing support to the residents of Lane County when they began to lose services as a result of the reductions. He emphasized it was not the County’s problem, but the residents of Lane County’s problem. Mr. Clark said he attended the most recent meeting of the Public Safety Coordinating Council Juvenile Justice Subcommittee, at which members had a similar discussion about the Lane County public safety MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 1 Work Session budget outlook. The public safety implications of the anticipated revenue reductions were equally devastating, and he advocated for a discussion of what happened to Eugene citizens when County-funded services went away, and about the City’s appropriate role. Mr. Clark said he attended the recent Fire and EMS Awards ceremony on February 24, and found it inspirational, particularly in regard to the stories of the innovative approaches the department was taking to service provision. Mr. Clark said he attended the February 24 meeting of the Cal Young neighborhood organization and was happy to see Floyd Zimmer, a resident who had worked for a long time on behalf of the neighborhood, be elected president. Mr. Clark reported that he had attended the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce’s recent Economic Forecast, which he found interesting. Mr. Clark said he attended the River Road Community Celebration on February 9 with his children and was glad to see Mayor Piercy and Ms. Ortiz in attendance. Mr. Clark reported he was attending the Police Operations Academy in his position as a council representa- tive to the Police Commission. Mr. Clark invited residents to a community dialogue on March 6 at 10:00 a.m. at Dani’s Coffee and Espresso at Santa Clara Square sponsored by himself and Lane County Commissioner Bill Fleenor. Ms. Taylor requested legal counsel as to whether the City could waive the assessments for road improve- ments for residents affected by the Crest Drive area street improvement project. She also asked about potential adjustments for those with long frontages but narrow lots. Ms. Taylor said she was hearing about potholes from her constituents, and was also hearing a desire to save Civic Stadium from redevelopment. She thought the City of Eugene should do whatever it could to aid in that effort. Ms. Taylor said she also heard from those wanting a park across from the Eugene Library and hoped that could be included in any Request for Proposals issued for the site. She said that commercial and residential development was stimulated by such parks. Ms. Taylor reported that the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations had completed its review of legislative proposals made in the recent legislative special session and would begin to revise the legislative policies when it met again later in the year. She also invited suggestions for legislation the City should introduce in the next session. Mr. Zelenka said that the University of Oregon basketball arena was a major issue in his neighborhood and the legislature had recently approved the bonds to pay for it. He anticipated the neighborhood would ask the City to apply the conditional use permit process in its review of the proposal. Mr. Zelenka said he attended a recent Birth-to-Three fundraiser on February 23 that raised more than $80,000, which was fantastic for the families served. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka said the Metropolitan Policy Committee continued to work on transportation planning and local criteria for the selection and prioritization of projects. The committee was also investigating having its meetings televised. Ms. Ortiz said she was happy to have been elected to chair the HSC, which was an important committee to the community. She said the HSC was provided with statistics about Project Homeless Connect, which confirmed her perception that many of the volunteers involved were ordinary people. Many personal connections had been made at the event, which she found very heart-warming. Ms. Ortiz recalled the recent Joint Elected Officials meeting and said she was glad all councilors were able to be present. She anticipated a bumpy future given the County’s lack of Road Fund dollars in addition to its budget woes, but believed it was a positive thing for the elected officials to talk to each other about community values. She thought more such opportunities should be created. Ms. Ortiz said she had been invited to a presentation at the new River Bend campus which was hosted by her boss, Mel Prine. Mr. Prine had shared the hospital’s vision of the future of its site with local elected officials. That vision included low-income housing. Mayor Piercy said that Commissioner Faye Stewart had committed to speaking to the council about the impacts of the loss of the Secure Rural Schools money, and she thought that an opportunity to begin the discussion mentioned by councilors in their remarks. She suggested the council should consider developing an emergency plan to respond to the gaps in service that would exist when those dollars were no longer available. Ms. Ortiz noted that Councilor Bonny Bettman was absent on a medical mission to Ecuador. Mayor Piercy welcomed City Manager pro tem Angel Jones back from her recent illness. City Manager pro tem Jones reported that Beth Forrest had accepted the position of City Council Support Manager. Ms. Forrest had been serving in the position on an interim basis. City Manager pro tem Jones welcomed Ms. Forrest. B. WORK SESSION Sustainability Initiative Update Mayor Piercy welcomed members of the Sustainability Commission who were present for the item. Sustainability Manager Felicity Fahy joined the council for the item. Ms. Fahy introduced Will Shaver and Tim Laue, chair and vice chair of the Sustainability Commission. Ms. Fahy provided an update on the Sustainability Initiative, noting the establishment of the commission in 2007. She said it had been highlighted to her that the City needed to focus more on the role of social equity, and she suggested there was “a great deal of capacity’ to broaden the discussion and include the three aspects of sustainability in everything the City did. Ms. Fahy believed the City could play a role in bringing the many players who had a role in sustainability together and noted the interest being expressed by other communities in the work the City was doing. Ms. Fahy reviewed the work that she and the commission had done to date and forecasted the activities of the Sustainability Commission for the upcoming year. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Shaver discussed the commission’s meetings, noting the high level of public involvement and the sense of urgency expressed by both the commission and community-at-large regarding social and environmental issues that the initiative was trying to address. The commission was working on its work plan and would hold a work plan retreat later that week. The council would receive the work plan later in the year. He said there were a wide array of topics for the commission to consider. Mr. Shaver noted commission members present: Josh Bruce, Shawn Boles, Dave Funk, Howie Bonnett, and Brian Erickson, and reminded the council that Mr. Zelenka served as its representative on the commission. Mr. Laue reported the commission had developed its mission statement . He shared the mission statement: The Sustainability Commission works to create a healthy community now and in the future by proposing measurable solutions to pressing environmental, social and economic concerns to the City of Eugene, its partners, and its people. Mayor Piercy expressed appreciation for the work of the commission and said that much had been accomplished in the time since Ms. Fahy joined the organization. Ms. Solomon arrived. Mayor Piercy asked if the Lane County Homebuilders Association had been asked to participate in the conference the City was co-sponsoring. Ms. Fahy indicated she would follow up on the question. Mayor Piercy expressed strong support for the sense of urgency felt by the commission, because everything she heard indicated much more needed to be done in a short timeframe. Anything Eugene could do locally seemed important to her. Mayor Piercy said as she was reading the initiative action plan, she recalled former councilor Gary Papé’s commitment to green building policy and moving us toward the LEED standard. She did not want to lose sight of that. Mayor Piercy recommended the council use the City’s sustainability policies as a filter for all that it did to ensure that it was going in the right direction with its activities. Ms. Ortiz thanked all the commissioners present. She said according to Popular Science magazine’s rankings, Eugene had done well in regard to sustainability-related issues. While the community could challenge itself in many areas, she thought the community should know that it was doing well. Ms. Ortiz emphasized that being green was much more comprehensive than recycling. Ms. Ortiz noted the nomination of Eugene resident Lorraine Kerwood of NextSteps Recyling, a home-grown nonprofit, for the Volvo for Life Award, and said that demonstrated one person could make a difference. Mr. Pryor thanked the Sustainability Commission and Ms. Fahy for the work they had done. He said that Eugene could not be excellent and green unless it backed that commitment up with willingness and resources, and he thought the commission demonstrated the City’s commitment. He liked that sustainability was a trend that the nation and planet was moving toward. People did not have to be convinced that green was good. The commission was a resource for those who were seeking to be more “green” and could provide them with the assistance they needed to achieve that goal. He said the commission could provide residents with practices and incentives to move the City from word to the deed. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka commended the commissioners and said it was a pleasure working with them. He also commended Ms. Fahy for her staff work. He said the commission was now moving into the substance of its work, and wanted to get going to respond to the urgency both the members and the public felt to place Eugene on the forefront of what he anticipated was a huge social, environmental, and economic movement. Mr. Zelenka noted that Ms. Kerwood was a finalist for the Volvo award and as a finalist had already received $25,000 to donate to her favorite charity, which was Next Steps Recycling. If Ms. Kerwood won the award, she would receive another $125,000 and a Volvo for life. Mayor Piercy said that Ms. Kerwood was a good example of the ‘triple bottom line.’ She recycled every element of computer equipment and employed people at a living wage to do that work. Mayor Piercy spoke to the subject of partnerships in the broader community, noting a recent meeting of local government agencies convened by University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer to talk about what those agencies could accomplish together in regard to sustainability. She thought the recognition the City received in Popular Science magazine was largely due to the work of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB). She noted the recent international recognition LTD had received for its EmX system. Such things worked together to help the community reduce its carbon emissions. Ms. Solomon noted that Ms. Kerwood was the guest speaker at the February 28 meeting of the Active Bethel Citizens on February 28 at Petersen Barn. Ms. Solomon suggested it made sense to give EWEB a seat on the Sustainability Commission given its contribution to Eugene’s green image. Ms. Fahy indicated that EWEB had committed to send a non-voting liaison to commission meetings. Ms. Taylor endorsed Mayor Piercy’s remarks about using sustainability as a filter for council decisions. She asked how a living wage ordinance fit into the commission’s work. Ms. Taylor was encouraged by the good people who served on the commission, and was optimistic about what would come out of the work of the commission. She hoped that the City did not focus on taking credit for achievements and on how good it was but on what it was doing. Mr. Clark also thanked the commission for the hard work it did. He supported the commission’s vision and goals and thought it was doing a good job of quantifying how the City could be more sustainable. Mr. Clark agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon in regard to a position for EWEB on the commission. Mayor Piercy suggested the ordinance establishing the Sustainability Commission would need to be amended for EWEB to participate on the commission. Mayor Piercy agreed that Eugene should not just take credit for its success and needed to show action, not just talk, but she suggested that such successes gave people the motivation to keep going. She did not think such praise was just “praise for praise’s sake,” but acted as a building block to help people move forward. Mr. Laue spoke to the concept of the triple bottom line—economic, social, and environmental—and said that those were very large topics. He said the commission had discussed the need to measure its progress on its work plan in definable ways; there was no way to do that without partnerships with the community and City organization. Mr. Laue said that while sustainability seemed to be a relatively new concept to some, MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 5 Work Session the City of Eugene had been working on many sustainability practices for a long time, and he said it should receive credit for the work it had done long before sustainability became the “issue du jour.” He emphasized that the topic was huge and recommended the council pay close attention to what the commission did and remember it could not do it all but wanted to do what it could well. Mr. Shaver invited the council’s input in the future. B. WORK SESSION Railroad Quiet Zone Tom Larsen, Public Works Transportation, provided the staff report, reminding the council of past work sessions about the topic, where staff was directed by the council to monitor the train crossing situation in the central area and investigate the success of other quiet zones. Subsequently, staff learned of the availability of some federal funding in the form of Section 130 dollars, safety money administered by the State. In order to qualify for those dollars, crossings must be closed, with a focus on redundant crossings. The federal government indicated that the six crossings in six blocks likely constituted redundant crossings. He said that the council had a policy against closing streets and the council directed staff to solicit public input on the topic. Mr. Larsen emphasized it was possible to have a quiet zone without any street closures. The closures could vary in cost from $25,000 to $400,000; many crossings were not appropriate for the lower cost supplemen- tal safety measures. The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the railroad strongly supported closures but there was limited funding. He said that closing at least one crossing helped in regard to the negotiations and diagnostic process. Rob Inerfeld of Public Works Transportation provided an overview of the community outreach done in regard to the topic. He reported there was strong residential support for quiet zones, while businesses were supportive or noncommittal. People favored quiet zones with no street closures but a majority of those who attended expressed support for one street closure. Staff had recommended that street be Madison Street. Mr. Larsen called attention to information in the AIS regarding costs, noting the single street closure was reflected in Table 1. Mayor Piercy solicited council comments and questions. Ms. Ortiz commended the staff work but found none of the staff-prepared motions sufficient. She noted that a group of people had been identified to serve on a Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) charged to work on railroad-related issues and she thought the topic was one of the topics that groups should be assessing. Ms. Ortiz noted the council’s receipt of an e-mail message from resident Brian Obie, who had suggested the City, through the United Front effort, request federal money to underwrite the costs of a quiet zone. She endorsed Mr. Obie’s suggestion. She thought Mr. Obie was correct and given his huge investment in the community, the City could, on its part, work to get a quiet zone, which affected his business. Ms. Ortiz said the Whiteaker Community Council took a position that, while it did not prefer street closures, suggested that affected residents should not have to pay for it. Mr. Larsen said the City had not decided on a local improvement district, although it had been discussed. He noted there were quiet zones based on a downtown business tax and on revenue bonds; it was up to the community to decide how to pay for it. Ms. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 6 Work Session Ortiz did not want to see the neighbors assessed for the street closures given that all residents would benefit from the quiet zone. Mr. Clark said if pushed, he would accept the manager’s recommendations, but he too was not satisfied with any of the options. He supported a quiet zone in concept but pointed out that whistles were designed to keep people safe at the crossings. He noted that Coos Bay was considering facility improvements that could substantially increase rail traffic going through Eugene, further increasing the opportunities for accidents at railroad crossings. He had some concerns about creating a quiet zone in advance of that because it could create safety challenges for the City. Mr. Clark said that $1.4 million for a quiet zone was quite a bit of money given the City’s budgetary challenges. While he would like to support the zone, he would have to say, “not at the moment, but we’ll keep working on it.” He agreed that the City should look to its federal representatives for assistance. He did not favor placing the item in the budget right now. Mr. Pryor said in principle he supported such a zone as residents wanted it. However, Mr. Pryor stressed, the crossings must be safe; that must be the overriding consideration. He agreed the City should seek federal funding. He pointed out that the physical improvements associated with the zone would be a one-time expenditure. He thought that fact created more opportunity if the council was willing to take it. He acknowledged the council would have to find a source of funding. Mr. Pryor confirmed with Mr. Larsen that the needed improvements must be made to an entire area to achieve quiet zone status. Mr. Larsen said that there were about two miles involved overall. Speaking to the issue of safety, Mr. Larsen said the anticipated reduction in vehicles and the safety measures to be installed would produce a safer situation. Mr. Pryor said that safety and a quiet zone were not mutually exclusive. He wanted to keep moving forward with a quiet zone in a realistic manner. He said if the council decided on a one-time capital commitment, he believed it would need to decide what other project would be dropped. Mr. Pryor reiterated that he wanted to continue to move forward on the process. Ms. Solomon was unclear as to why the City needed a consultant to do work she thought could as easily be done by staff. She did not favor closing streets as she envisioned that would create ghetto-like qualities in the residential areas affected and harm to the businesses involved, and the other side streets nearby would be stressed by the additional load from cars avoiding the area. Ms. Solomon asked the costs of installing quad gates. Mr. Larsen said that it was $400,000 to $500,000 per gate. There were likely to be associated maintenance costs of about $10,000 annually. Ms. Solomon recalled hearing at a workshop on the subject that a quiet zone did not guarantee train horns would stop. Mr. Larsen concurred. He said that generally, the zone quieted only routine horns, but train engineers could still sound the train horn for a variety of safety-related reasons, including work crews, people on the tracks, and when they left the yard or station. Ms. Solomon wanted people to understand a quiet zone would only silence routine horns. Mr. Zelenka supported the establishment of a quiet zone. He agreed that safety was the paramount issue and it appeared a quiet zone would improve safety. He did not favor the establishment of a local improve- ment district to fund the street closures. He also agreed with Ms. Solomon about the need for a consultant. He wanted the affected neighborhood to be involved with any street closures. MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 7 Work Session Mr. Zelenka advocated for seeking funding through Representative DeFazio, suggesting that the cost be included on the City’s list of federal funding “asks.” Intergovernmental Relations Manager Brenda Wilson indicated that while the United Front priorities had been sent, an item could be added; however, federal transportation funding was appropriated in cycles, and the next appropriations would not come out until 2010. She said that the federal dollars mentioned by Mr. Larsen were available only for quiet zones with 50 percent street closures, and the deadline for other federal dollars had passed. Mr. Poling agreed there was a need for a quiet zone but he was also concerned about safety issues, including the response times by police and fire, which would be affected by the closure of streets. He favored the quad gates as the best approach, even with the cost involved. He acknowledged the costs of maintaining the gates. He recommended that the City’s representatives to the United Front broach the topic with the federal delegation. Mr. Poling opposed street closures for the reasons mentioned by Ms. Solomon. City Manager pro tem Jones indicated that staff recommended a consultant be hired due to work load issues. If staff did the work involved, another work task would have to be postponed. Ms. Taylor also did not support closing streets, hiring a consultant, or forming a local improvement district to pay the costs, although she found it no more unfair here than in other situations where people were asked to pay for facilities that other people used. Ms. Taylor confirmed with Mr. Larsen that the City could install one or two quad gates that would have an overall affect on safety. Mayor Piercy suggested the council needed to decisively convey its interest in the quiet zone, and recom- mended the City start the conversation with its federal delegates now even if the zone was some time away. She said the council could direct staff to work with Representative DeFazio’s Office on ways to fund a quiet zone because she was not convinced the City was aware of all the funding sources available. Mayor Piercy agreed about not closing streets for the reasons mentioned. Mayor Piercy reiterated that the council needed to contact Representative DeFazio about what it had in mind. Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Pryor, moved to direct the City Manager to continue to pursue options for creating a quiet zone as a council priority, including directing staff working with the United Front to start a conversation with Representative Peter DeFazio’s Office about funding for a quiet zone of the magnitude set forth by staff with quad gates at every cross- ing. Ms. Ortiz thanked staff for the information and hoped the council considered it a priority for the sake of things like safety and downtown development. Mr. Zelenka supported the motion. At his request, Mr. Larsen described a quad gate. Mr. Zelenka asked if the railroads and ODOT supported quiet zones. Mr. Larsen said that ODOT was generally neutral, and the railroads tended to believe there was an increase in their liability because of their MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 8 Work Session experience in Florida. The railroads had tended to be against such zones. The railroads were more comfortable with the risks they were familiar with. Mr. Zelenka perceived a railroad quiet zone as a quality of life issue for residents and endorsed the Mayor’s recommendations regarding initiating the conversation with Representative DeFazio. Mr. Pryor supported the motion because he thought it demonstrated the council’s commitment to such a zone while providing it with a level of flexibility. He thought the council needed to embark on the discussion now. Mr. Clark agreed with Mr. Pryor. He indicated, for the purpose of legislative intent, the purpose of the motion was to get the “ask” in line and begin a conversation, but not for the item to jump up in priority over other United Front priorities. Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Pryor concurred. Ms. Taylor expressed concern about the maintenance costs of quad gates, and noted that she personally liked hearing the sound of train whistles. The motion passed unanimously, 7:0. City Manager pro tem Jones confirmed that the council was directing the staff to begin the discussion about funding, but no other work would occur. Ms. Ortiz recommended that staff consider returning at later time with a proposal that included a consultant if that was considered necessary for work load reasons. Mayor Piercy adjourned the meeting at 6:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Angel Jones City Manager pro tem (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council February 25, 2008 Page 9 Work Session ATTACHMENT C M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—City Hall April 21, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Betty Taylor, Bonny Bettman, Jennifer Solomon, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka. COUNCILORS ABSENT: George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the City Council work session to order. 1. WORK SESSION: Delta Sand and Gravel Mayor Piercy called attention to three motions prepared by staff for council consideration and the motion Ms. Bettman intended to offer, copies of which were provided to the council and audience. City Manager Jon Ruiz introduced Senior Planner, Kurt Yeiter, who provided a brief overview of the item before the council. He reminded the council of the applications submitted by Delta Sand and Gravel for an amendment to the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area General Plan that would add a 72-acre expansion site to the Statewide goal inventory for significant mineral and aggregate sites and change the land use designation from Agricultural to Sand and Gravel. The company also applied for a related zone change and a variance to allow excavation within 150 feet of a waterway. Only the Metro Plan amendment required council action; the other applications were under the purview of Lane County due to the location of the site. Mr. Yeiter reminded the council of the deliberations it began in February of 2007, and recalled the council’s preliminary decision that the application did not meet the Statewide planning goal test for determining there were sufficient aggregate resources on the site. That was sufficient to deny the application. The Board of County Commissioners had approved the application with conditions, but its approval was not effective without the approval of the City of Eugene. Mr. Yeiter called the council’s attention to the three ordinances, and associated findings, prepared by staff at the council’s direction. He reviewed the three ordinances, and suggested that Ordinance 1 (Attachment B) had an advantage because it included a more thorough analysis of the application than the other two draft ordinances and included an analysis of the dust issue considered by the Eugene Planning Commission. If the ordinance were appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), it was more likely that the ordinance would be remanded for further consideration rather than reversed by LUBA. Mr. Yeiter recommended that the council adopt Ordinance 1. He called attention to an error on pages 12 of Ordinance 1 and page 10 of Ordinance 2, noting that the reference to “cubic tons” should be to “tons.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 1 Work Session Mr. Yeiter reviewed the applicable criterion related to consistency with relevant statewide planning goals with a focus on Goal 5 requirements. Mr. Yeiter recommended that the council use Attachment A, the Delta Sand and Gravel Decision Tree and Summary Findings, as a starting point for discussion, and provide broad direction to staff for revised findings if it found that necessary. Staff would revise the findings to the extent directed. He noted that Stephanie Schultz and Lane County Planner Director, Kent Howe, and Lane County Planner, Stephanie Schulz, were present, as was Emily Jerome of the City Attorney’s Office. Mayor Piercy called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman spoke to the issue of conflict resolution, determining from Ms. Jerome that the decision, if not unanimous, was not final for either jurisdiction. The Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) was then called upon to resolve the dispute with input from the applicant and interested parties, and then could make a recommendation to both bodies. The MPC could not force a particular outcome; the final decision was still up to the jurisdictions. Ms. Bettman spoke to the timeliness of the decision related to the application and asked why the MPC referral would be considered given that Eugene’s representatives were bound by the decision of the City Council. She pointed out that any vote taken at the MPC would require the City’s MPC representatives to uphold the council decision, further delaying the applicant or neighbors’ ability to seek a remedy or for the neighbors to seek a remedy through the appeals process. She asked if the council could dispense with that process. Ms. Jerome said no; the City and County both had code language that called for the MPC process. The council would have to pass a code amendment to override that provision. Continuing, Ms. Jerome said the matter must be referred to the MPC within five days and the MPC must meet within 30 days to discuss the matter, including an opportunity for public input that would not necessarily include a hearing but could include written testimony. Ms. Jerome said the MPC did not have to make a recommendation to the two jurisdictions, but if it chose to make a recommendation it must do so within 30 days. If the MPC did not act, the MPC would be considered to have denied the application. Responding to a follow-up question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Jerome said that the maximum time frame for MPC action would be 80 days. Ms. Solomon arrived. Ms. Bettman said it would be difficult for her to support Ordinance 1 as recommended by staff because it stated that the application was consistent with other criteria, and she did not agree. She noted the motion she intended to offer the council, dependent on discussion. Mr. Zelenka asked if adoption of Ordinance 1 suggested that the other issues identified in testimony could be mitigated. Mr. Yeiter said yes, with the exception of dust. Mr. Zelenka asked if the findings could be replaced by a finding that spoke only to the quantity of the resource and dust. Ms. Jerome said that the law indicated that once the council found a conflicting use could not be mitigated, it was next required to do an ESEE analysis to determine whether despite the lack of minimization, the aggregate use was so important that it should be allowed anyway. That was addressed in Ordinance 1. Responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka about the potential response from LUBA, Ms. Jerome reminded him of the council’s finding that the site contained no significant aggregate resources, which was the focus of Ordinance 2; Ordinance 1 was broader. LUBA would have to determine the City was correct in regard to the resource to get to the conflicting use analysis. She reminded the council that the findings also spoke to MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 2 Work Session other criteria, and if the application was remanded the council could review those findings and broaden them. The council was not prohibiting from looking at a number of options during a remand if those options were raised in the context of the remand and the public was given an opportunity to comment. Mr. Zelenka confirmed with Mr. Yeiter that the Planning Commission found the issue of noise could be mitigated. Ms. Jerome said if that finding was challenged at LUBA, the council could revisit it. Mr. Clark was uncomfortable with Ordinance 1 because it contained information in the record but the council had not deliberated on them. He was opposed to Ordinance 2 as he continued to disagree with the conclusion that the site lacked adequate resources, which he thought was a decision reached in an arbitrary fashion. Mr. Pryor wanted to be diligent and practical and recognized that the council must proceed in steps. He pointed out the resource issue was about a threshold. He said that if the council was required to review the other issues on remand, it would do so. Ms. Jerome clarified the issue would be narrowed to those remanded by LUBA. Mr. Pryor reiterated his remarks about the threshold question of the resource involved and said he would be willing to revisit that issue and others but believed the council would spend considerable time in discussion knowing what the council outcome would be. He supported Ordinance 1. Ms. Solomon clarified with Ms. Jerome that the council had merely to identify one basis for denying the application and did not have to address the other criteria in the findings. However, Ms. Jerome said, the council was not prohibited from looking at other criteria. Ms. Solomon said the application process had become a “travesty.” She believed that Delta Sand and Gravel had sufficiently demonstrated the resource was in place using conservative estimates. She believed the company could co-exist with its neighbors. She thought it astonishing the State regulatory agencies and the County could approve the application but the City could not. She thought it a “bad day for Eugene.” She believed that the issue should be passed on to the State and indicated she would not support any of the ordinances denying the application. Ms. Bettman asserted that the neighbors and many others believed the use of gravel mining was not consistent with the criteria. She believed the application “fell apart” because Delta Sand and Gravel failed to speak up at the hearings that resulted in residential development so close to the site it planned to expand its mining operation onto. She said “they should have let somebody know.” She believed the company should have recognized the huge conflict that would exist as the area was built out residentially. She thought there was enough fault to go around for those who did not think ahead to avoid the conflict. Ms. Bettman said the problem with Ordinance 1 was that it meant the council was voting on the entire application, including a statement that the transportation impact analysis was sufficient. She said that even if the company’s statement about maintaining its current levels of production was true, it put the onus on others to ensure its veracity. She said that if the company decided to increase production the City lacked a baseline transportation impact analysis to use for evaluation. She thought the background noise unaccept- able and said the excavation planned near the residents violated the buffer. Ms. Bettman said the issues involved had been deliberated extensively. If her motion passed, staff would consider the record and the discussions reflected in the minutes to revise the findings. Mr. Zelenka preferred modified findings restricted to the issues of dust and the lack of a resource. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Pryor said part of him wished to facilitate the council decision in regard to which would be most likely to make it through the process, and if amending the motion was necessary, that was fine. He would vote against which ever application denied the permit because he was not in favor of denying the application. He could say he liked one over the other but that did not mean he would vote for it. Ms. Solomon suggested the honorable thing for the council to do was to deny the application so the applicant could move on. She pointed out the City had “sat on the application” for more than one year and the company was not receiving its “day in court.” She thought the City was doing the company a huge disservice. She hoped the application could be moved on quickly to LUBA. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s remarks regarding the affected homeowners, Ms. Solomon pointed out the property in question was owned by Delta outright for many years, and it was not up to the company to tell the County and City where homes should go; those governments made those decision. She thought the homeowners also had a level of responsibility. They realized the mining operation was next door when they moved in. She suggested it was disingenuous to blame the company when it was in place first and owned the property outright and met all the criteria related to the application. She pointed out the company had two Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) complaints in 12 years. Speaking to Ms. Bettman’s comments that the council deliberated extensively on the application, Mr. Clark recalled that council had deliberated extensively on the process throughout many meetings, but at the last meeting, when it deliberated on the application’s concept, it reached only that point where it discussed the insufficiency of resources. Then discussion stopped. While each point was in the record and addressed by the Planning Commission, he did not think the council had adequately deliberated on those points to the degree he felt comfortable about a decision to deny the application. . Mr. Clark pointed out that both the neighbors and the applicant were all inside his ward, Ward 5. He understood the concerns of the neighbors but pointed out that there were rocks under the property in question, and at some point they would be mined. The question before the council was less who than when. Mr. Clark thought the record showed the company was a good one with 130 family-wage jobs and medical and dental benefits. The company had been a great community member, and he did not want to see the land sold to a company from outside the community with deep enough pockets to prevail in the end and much less consideration for the neighbors. Ms. Taylor asserted that there were more than two complaints about Delta Sand and Gravel during her 11- year tenure on the LRAPA board of directors. Ms. Taylor asked Ms. Jerome if the council was suggesting it found the other criteria satisfied if it did not explicitly address them. Ms. Jerome responded that the council was not commenting on them; on remand, it might or might not be able to address the criteria. She was reluctant to confine the findings to the issues identified by Mr. Zelenka without further analysis of its impact on the decision. Ms. Ortiz said she would support a motion to deny the application. She did not disagree that the company was a good one, but if the gravel resource was not there the operation was a waste of farmland. She suggested the land be used for infill and growth or it should remain as farmland and open green space. She agreed with Ms. Bettman about the traffic impact. She acknowledged that the community had grown up around it but the company had an incredible impact on traffic on Beltline that she had recently begun to experience personally because of her change of work place. She frequently encountered very large sand and gravel trucks that traveled to and from the operation and suggested the council consider how it would look at that impact if the company was newly relocating to the site. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Jerome asked the council not to discuss new evidence, such as that represented by Ms. Ortiz’s personal experience traveling on Beltline. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Zelenka, moved to direct staff to perform further analysis of the application’s consistency with the criteria, considering citizen involvement and transportation- related impacts, impacts caused by mining of the aquaclude within 150 feet of existing resi- dences, noise impacts on existing residences, and the impact approval would have on the supply of residential land. I further move to direct staff to, if those analysis warrants, return to the City Council with revised findings for Ordinance No. 1 (Council Bill 4791) determining that the ap- plication has failed to meet additional criteria. Ms. Bettman said her motion assumed the council would retain its findings related to adequacy of the resource and dust, and directed staff to review the record for additional findings if warranted. Mr. Zelenka agreed that the company in question was a good one but the decision before the council was not about the company. He pointed out that both the Lane County and Eugene planning commissions agreed that the dust could not be mitigated, and the Lane County Planning Commission, by a vote of 4:2, agreed the flooding could not be mitigated. He thought Ms. Bettman’s motion allowed the council to get more information and develop findings that were more “robust” in its denial because he thought the application had many faults. Mr. Clark indicated he could not support the motion. He said his recollection of the record was that the company would be doing construction near the perimeter, but the motion spoke to mining. He asked Ms. Bettman to clarify that point. Ms. Bettman suggested the issue was one of semantics; the company would remove gravel from the ditch it dug for the aquaclude and selling it as a resource. She thought it could be categorized as mining, but the company called it construction, and it still had the same impact as mining would have on the residents. She noted that the site was within one city block of the residences. Mr. Clark said that the assumption Ms. Bettman was making would preclude mitigation of any kind because it would not allow anyone to construct anything by way of a mitigation barrier. He could not agree with Ms. Bettman’s conclusion. Ms. Bettman asked if Mr. Clark could support the motion if “mining” was changed to “excavation.” Mr. Pryor expressed appreciation to Ms. Bettman for her effort to develop something more comprehensive and thoughtful but indicated he would still vote against it because it denied the application. Mr. Clark indicated he would be unable to support the motion. The motion passed, 4:3; Ms. Solomon, Mr. Clark, and Mr. Pryor voting no. Mayor Piercy indicated that she would work with staff to schedule a follow-up work session. The meeting adjourned at 6:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 5 Work Session Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 6 Work Session ATTACHMENT D M I N U T E S Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room—Eugene City Hall 777 Pearl Street—Eugene, Oregon April 28, 2008 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Andrea Ortiz, Chris Pryor, Bonny Bettman, Mike Clark, Alan Zelenka, Jennifer Solomon. COUNCILORS ABSENT: Betty Taylor, George Poling. Her Honor Mayor Kitty Piercy called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. She noted that councilors Betty Taylor and George Poling were unable to attend the meeting, and Ms. Ortiz had not yet arrived, so the council lacked a quorum of members and could take no action. A. Committee Reports and Items of Interest from Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mayor Piercy noted the recognition event for the City’s Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers held on April 25. Mayor Piercy called the council’s attention to the upcoming meeting of the West Eugene Collaborative, scheduled from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. at Fire Station 1 on April 29. Mayor Piercy announced the Mayor’s one-on-one at the Erb Memorial Union at the University of Oregon campus the following day; she noted that Mr. Zelenka, the councilor for the ward in which the university was located, also planned to attend. Ms. Ortiz arrived, constituting a quorum. Ms. Bettman commended Mayor Piercy and Mr. Zelenka as the City’s representatives on the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) in their success in ensuring that the MPC meetings were broadcast on MetroVi- sion, which she considered a positive development. She expressed appreciation to them for their role in helping make that happen. Ms. Bettman suggested the City Council needed to be proactive about the goals and measures for the new City Manager. She thought it important to get those established as soon as possible, and suggested it might be a natural progression to schedule the item after the council considered the council officers’ recommenda- tions related to the Police Auditor performance evaluation process. Ms. Bettman recalled that some years ago she had proposed that the council hold a work session on a local whistle blower ordinance and a work session had been scheduled. She said that former Mayor Jim Torrey MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 1 Work Session had retroactively “changed the rules” for how many councilors it took to place something on the agenda and canceled the work session. She asked that such a work session be scheduled soon. Mr. Clark said the Public Safety Coordinating Council’s Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice met the previous week to discuss the County budget situation and the impact of anticipated reductions on a range of youth offender programs. He said as a result of anticipated budget reductions, several programs intended to remediate first-time young offenders would be eliminated. He hoped the council would support his poll for a work session on what the City could do to address the situation left by the gaps in the County budget. Mr. Clark said he attended the recent Cal Young Neighborhood Association and thanked City Engineer Mark Schoening and Public Works Director Kurt Corey for their assistance in solving a neighborhood street issue in his ward. Mr. Zelenka said the Fairmount Neighbors appealed the Planning Director’s determination that the University of Oregon (UO) basketball arena was a university use requiring no conditional use permit, and a hearing on the matter was scheduled for May 5 in the Council Chamber. He supported the appeal, and noted the Hearings Official had 15 days to rule on the issue. He anticipated he would ask the council to schedule a work session on the issue. Mr. Zelenka reported that the UO had formed a liaison committee that included local residents to work on mitigation of the neighborhood’s major issues, which included traffic, parking, littering, and noise. He anticipated much more to come. Mr. Pryor said the Lane County budget situation was affecting the deliberations of the Human Services Commission’s (HSC) Allocations Planning Subcommittee in regard to how money would be allocated when funding dried up. He recalled that the HSC had gone through a service prioritization process the previous year and because of some last-minute funding, that outcome of that process did not have to be implemented. Now the service prioritization process was starting back up. He reported that the subcommittee was largely made up of providers, and it had discussed the input it would provide to the HSC. Mr. Pryor reported that he also attended the Lane Council of Governments Board of Directors’ meeting, which included a presentation on the proposed budget and an update on the current budget. LCOG was in fairly good shape. The board heard a presentation on the Lane County budget situation from Board of County Commissioners Chair Faye Stewart, and then discussed issues of regional concern. The issues at the top of the list were public safety and transportation, which were also at the top of the metropolitan list of issues. He said it was nice to see continuity, but unfortunate that those things that all were in agreement on were in such bad shape. City Manager Jon Ruiz reported that the Eugene 08 program kick off had occurred over the weekend. He said that many conversations were occurring at various levels about the Lane County budget situation, and the public safety element of that would be a primary discussion item at the upcoming joint elected officials meeting. Mr. Ruiz reported that petitioners failed to gather enough signatures to refer the Eugene Water & Electric Board bond proposal to the voters. Ms. Ortiz indicated she would be out of town for the upcoming Budget Committee presentation and hoped to have access to the presentation as soon as possible. Mayor Piercy reported that she and City Manager Jon Ruiz had met with the City’s fire and police chiefs, as well as Commissioner Stewart and Springfield Mayor Sid Leiken, to frame the discussion of the joint elected officials meeting. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Zelenka raised the issue of the new federal rules related to the use of publicly funded bus charter services and asked the manager to provide the council with more information. He suggested there was an “odd flaw” in the regulations. Mayor Piercy indicated it was her understanding that the issue had been worked out. B. WORK SESSION: Regional Transportation Planning Rob Inerfeld of the Public Works Department provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled Regional Transportation Planning. Public Works Director Kurt Corey and City Engineer Mark Schoening were also present for the item. Mr. Inerfeld highlighted the various transportation and land use plans the City was required to have, provided an overview of key issues related to regional transportation planning, reviewed the draft work plan associated with the City’s obligations around regional planning, and reviewed the next steps in the planning process. Mayor Piercy said that the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) was considering all of the expenditures through the lens of the State Legislature’s requirement that the cities reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent. There was also an effort to integrate land use and transportation to a degree not envisioned when the original TransPlan was developed. Mayor Piercy called for council comments and questions. Mr. Zelenka said the greenhouse gas analysis that would occur was important. He believed that the link between land use and transportation planning was key and very critical to how the community grew. He suggested that the work coming to the council was important because the council was working with two plans, TransPlan and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which did essentially the same thing. He suggested the plans could be combined to produce a smaller document and perhaps more efficiencies. He said that Portland Metro, which included 24 governments, had only one plan, and he thought the community should attempt to accomplish that as well. He was not “afraid to lead” to make that happen. Mr. Zelenka spoke to the issue of public involvement. He said the expenditures the community made on transportation were enormous, yet there was also most no public involvement or public testimony when hearings occurred. Generally, only three or four people testified and they were always the same people. For that reason, he did not think that the MPC was doing the proper outreach to the community. He said that to help overcome the lack of public involvement, the MPC had tasked its citizen advisory committee to work on how to increase participation and had agreed to broadcast MPC meetings. Ms. Ortiz said it was often difficult to describe to people the places the money came from and she appreciated the information. She said the information before the council did not appear to address potholes as much as new capacity. Mr. Inerfeld said that it did not speak to the basic issue of pavement preservation. There was a Eugene-specific policy that called on the City to manage and improve its existing system before adding new capacity. Ms. Ortiz said that it did not seem like the City did that with those dollars. She asked if any Federal money was spent on preservation. Mr. Inerfeld said the Federal dollars were largely designated as modernization money and there was little the MPC could do about that. Ms. Ortiz reiterated her appreciation for the information. Ms. Bettman said the community spent hundreds of millions of dollars planning and creating plans and the council had established policies calling for prioritization of the existing systems, and “it doesn’t get done for multiple reasons” and she doubted that it would until “we run out of money or run out of gas.” MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 3 Work Session Ms. Bettman asked how the RTP was inconsistent with the TransPlan. Mr. Inerfeld said there were projects that were already built that were still in TransPlan but had been removed from the RTP. Ms. Bettman asked if there were projects in the RTP that were not in TransPlan. Mr. Inerfeld said he would have to get back to her with that information. As an example, he noted that staff had a project intended to provide better access th from the Fern Ridge Path to the West 11 Avenue area around Target. Ms. Bettman thought the information included in the Agenda Item Summary (AIS) was insufficient. She thought the council needed to know all the inconsistencies between the RTP and TransPlan, including Springfield and Lane County projects. She asked for more information about those jurisdictions’ projects. Mr. Inerfeld said he could secure that information. He recalled that there were projects moved from the illustrative list to the constrained list in the RTP; they included two interchanges in Springfield and two highway projects in Eugene. Ms. Bettman noted staff’s recommendation to move forward with the planning horizon and the West Eugene Parkway (WEP) removal from the TransPlan and asked which projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) were in jeopardy if the plan was not amended. Mr. Inerfeld was unsure what projects would be in jeopardy, but noted that the MPC had programmed improvements to the Beltline within that STIP cycle. Ms. Bettman asked if that would be in jeopardy if the amendments were not made. Mr. Inerfeld said that the staff of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) had expressed discomfort about having a plan about to expire in the midst of a STIP cycle. Ms. Solomon found the information provided very helpful. She expected the City Council would see more specifics when it saw the amendments. She asked about Lane Transit District’s (LTD) role in the process. Mr. Inerfeld said that LTD had two board members on the MPC and General Manager Mark Pangborn attended MPC meetings. While LTD would not be voting on the Transportation System Plan, it was involved in its development and would continue to be at the table for discussion. Mayor Piercy said that ODOT indicated to the MPC that the State was receiving less in gas tax money because people were driving fewer miles and were driving hybrids, and there were fewer dollars for doing business as usual, which had caused ODOT to take a different look at how it wished to do transportation planning. It also caused ODOT to look to local jurisdictions for more and larger project matches. Mr. Clark said that people were already referring to the upcoming 2009 State Legislature as the transporta- tion session during which statewide transportation issues would be addressed, and that would be reflected in the State budget. However, he also noted the recent revenue forecast, which was not favorable, and asked how that would potentially affect the actions that could be taken by the Legislature. Assistant City Manager Angel Jones indicated staff would follow up with a memorandum. Mr. Zelenka spoke to the issue of the modernization money. He pointed out that most of the projects on the list were reconstruction projects. The Beltline-Coburg to River Road and Delta Highway intersection projects were examples of that. The projects did not add capacity but changed existing capacity. Mr. Zelenka called the council’s attention to the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) website, www.thempo.org, which allowed residents to examine the projects on the project list. Mr. Zelenka observed that $8 million was being allocated by the State to all of Region 2, which was the entire southwest Oregon area, for the years 2012-2013. He said the gas tax had not been raised in 15 years, and the lack of funding was a ramification of that. MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 4 Work Session Mr. Zelenka recalled that the MPC had requested that staff schedule a discussion of the subject of one plan versus two plans, and he anticipated that would occur in May. Mr. Zelenka also noted the MPC’s interest in establishing local prioritization criteria for projects. He said that used to occur, but the MPC had moved away from the process. Ms. Bettman said the council and metropolitan area had policies that prioritized preservation of the existing system over modernization, but the council, MPC, and State decisions were not consistent with that policy. She cited the local expenditure of Connect Oregon and the Oregon Transportation Improvement Act moneys as examples. She said the City’s elected leaders were lobbying for legislation inconsistent with the City’s policies. She said there was plenty of blame to go around. In addition, if the City’s systems development charges accurately reflected the cost of providing new capacity, the City would have more revenue. Ms. Bettman thought the step of determining the framework of the local Transportation System Plan and regional Transportation System Plan was a policy decision and asked how the council would make that decision. Mr. Inerfeld said that had not been worked out, but he anticipated the decision would come back to the council for action. Ms. Bettman asserted that the local community was very involved in the 1999 TransPlan update; the hearing that occurred had to be held over because there were “hundreds and hundreds” of people who wanted to offer testimony. She said that it was a monumental process that resulted in the plan before the council. She referred to Chapter 4 of TransPlan, which indicated it was due for a major update in 2007. Now staff was proposing housekeeping “tweaks” and proposing to put off the update. Ms. Solomon confirmed the timing of the next steps in the process with Mr. Inerfeld. Mr. Inerfeld said that staff did not think it made sense to do a full update of TransPlan as it was likely additional amendments would be required in response to the results of the comprehensive lands assessment. He clarified, in response to a follow-up question from Ms. Solomon, the amendments did not have to be made within a year as long as the City had a work plan approved by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC). He said that staff at LCDC and ODOT had expressed interest in seeing the amendments done relatively soon. Ms. Solomon was concerned about how staff was using the word “framework” given that she thought the City already had a framework in place in the form of the existing planning documents. Mr. Inerfeld suggested that the issue had to do with whether Eugene shared a local transportation system plan or just the regional transportation system plan with Springfield. Ms. Solomon thought that sounded problematic. Mr. Zelenka said it was his understanding the choices were that Eugene could complete the TransPlan update in one year or it could go to LCDC with the work plan. He did not think the update could be done in one year and he thought requesting an extension made sense. He said that House Bill 3337, which had separated the urban growth boundaries of the two cities, further complicated the matter. He reported that the MPC had asked staff to return with a proposal on how to integrate that with the planning process. Mr. Clark advocated that Eugene maintain a good partnership with Springfield in regard to regional and local transportation planning. He noted that Springfield’s elected representatives had been appointed to key State committees that oversaw transportation funding and hoped the City could continue to work as closely with those groups as possible. Ms. Bettman asked if Mr. Inerfeld was suggesting in the agenda item summary (AIS) for this item that the TransPlan and the RTP would be consistent after the City Council processed the two amendments. Mr. Inerfeld said no. He reiterated that the only change to the project list recommended by the State agencies MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 5 Work Session was the deletion of the parkway; the State recommended the MPC address the full consistency issue as part of a full TransPlan update. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman about changes to TransPlan being proposed by Springfield, Mr. Inerfeld said that at this point, only two amendments were being proposed to TransPlan, the change in the planning horizon and the deletion of the parkway. He conceded it was possible the other jurisdictions would want to propose changes and there could be other projects added. Ms. Bettman said that was not mentioned in the AIS. She understood that Springfield was planning for periodic review and questioned how the two cities could be on separate schedules in that regard. Ms. Bettman asked if the council would know what Springfield was proposing when it next saw the item. Mr. Inerfeld said yes. Ms. Bettman opposed going forward with two temporary amendments. She said if there was no penalty to Eugene in regard to what STIP funding would provide in 2010-2015, staff had failed to make a case to move forward with the two amendments. She said Eugene needed to take a work plan to the LCDC which encompassed the amendments and the completion of what was really needed, the 2007 major TransPlan update. That could take into account Springfield’s anticipated Metro Plan amendments, the change in the urban growth boundary, and the new lands inventory information. Mr. Inerfeld said that the State wanted to see the parkway removed because it was concerned it was relied on as a planned transportation facility when land use amendments and zone changes were proposed in west Eugene. The State saw no other changes to the RTP that would have the same impact on development. Mr. Zelenka reviewed the four projects added to the RTP. He said that that Springfield had wanted to move up its intersection modernization project at I-105 and Main Street to serve the development anticipated in the Natron area, and that project would compete with the Beltline project, Delta project, and anything that came out of the West Eugene Collaborative effort. Ms. Bettman said Springfield wanted to add the two projects to TransPlan so it could compete for money. She asked if Mr. Zelenka would support a motion that directed staff to pursue the next major update of TransPlan and incorporated the two amendments into that process. That way the council could look at the projects comprehensively and weigh what they should be in light of what she termed “a lot of new information.” Ms. Bettman recalled that the State had imposed a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction on the commu- nity, and local staff had gone to the State to lobby against that and for a plan to reduce VMT, which was where nodal development came from. She called attention to page 24 of TransPlan, which listed the performance measures and how many acres the community would have zoned for nodal development and the percentages of use targets in those nodes. She said the City had failed to analyze how well it’s done in regard to those performance measures, but it had not met them. She said the City spent millions of dollars, set targets, and then failed to meet them. She was not optimistic the new effort would achieve those targets. Ms. Bettman said that staff usually cited administrative rules or statutory provisions in the AIS when it discussed relevant Federal or State requirements and asked that staff cite the relevant provision, rule, or statute when it identified something as being required by the State. Mr. Zelenka noted that the MPC had been provided with that information so it should be easy to secure. Mr. Zelenka said in the short-term, he wanted to remove the parkway from the plan and change the planning horizon. All the other issues, including HB 3337, could be moved to the larger TransPlan update, which MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 6 Work Session would take longer to do. He supported that approach. He said that Springfield’s two projects were already in TransPlan. Mr. Inerfeld concurred. He said that two interchanges were in the illustrative list in TransPlan and on the fiscally constrained list in the RTP. Responding to a request for clarification from Mr. Zelenka, Mr. Inerfeld said the fiscally constrained list was a federal requirement that called on the jurisdiction to list projects for which funding had been identified within a 20-year time frame; the illustrative list was for projects beyond that time frame. Mr. Zelenka suggested the local prioritization criteria were a way to address Ms. Bettman’s concerns about the best way to allocate funding. The MPC would discuss how to implement those so that it could get a list of projects that worked for the region. He thought that encompassed the issues of concern mentioned by Ms. Bettman and things such as reducing greenhouse gases. Ms. Bettman objected that the Springfield projects had been moved up in priority over other projects that had been planned for, because they displaced other priorities and were inconsistent with the objectives Mr. Zelenka was talking about. She believed it was a waste of City staff resources for the City to do business in such a manner when it had invested so much in citizen involvement and planning. Such a process undermined all planning. Ms. Bettman asked if a project on the RTP constrained project list superseded the local TSP. Mr. Inerfeld did not know. He said the RTP could be amended at any time. Ms. Bettman requested an answer to the question. She asserted that the TSP was being amended to get Springfield’s projects “in the queue.” City Manager Ruiz indicated staff would follow up. Ms. Bettman said that the community was not accomplishing consistency with the RTP. She spoke of the waste in planning and the effort that occurred to undermine that planning so that people could do what they wanted. She called it a travesty and said the council was perpetuating it by letting the staff proceed as proposed. Mr. Zelenka said the plans were inconsistent for a variety of reasons but the two major issues were the two identified by staff. He agreed about Ms. Bettman’s remarks about planning, which was the reason he and Mayor Piercy were pushing for one plan and one process. He thought that the local metropolitan area could figure out how to achieve one plan. Ms. Bettman recalled that at one time in the not very distant past there had been one plan and it was split into two plans. She said that all the money spent on useless planning could fill a lot of potholes. The meeting adjourned at 6:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jon Ruiz City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES—Eugene City Council April 21, 2008 Page 7 Work Session